I am just getting my toes wet with some RDA copy cataloguing based on LC bibs.
Looking at the bib for Louise Erdrich's Round House, LCCN 2012005381.
There is a 260 in this one still. I want to edit it to 264(s). So far, I have
included:
264_1|aNew York, NY :|bHarper,|c[2012] or maybe
Thank you for this Trina, these are very helpful and detailed. It would
have taken me an eternity to get to the level of understanding that you
have in your documents, the Visual version in particular, is extremely
helpful. I don't mind being singled out, I singled myself out by asking
the
What Dana has just posted is very helpful (great timing!) and I have just
noticed that Mac answered a very similar one from me last time I was fiddling
with some RDA bibs. Should've checked my saved replies, note to self.
But I am still wondering about the issue of the author holding copyright
I just cataloged LCCN 2012007182 whose author holds the copyright and LC used
your first pattern only (264_1|aNew York, NY :|bHarper,|c[2012]).
Michael Mitchell
Technical Services Librarian
Brazosport College
Lake Jackson, TX
Michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu
From: Resource Description and
Karen Nelson posted:
There is a 260 in this one still. I want to edit it to 264(s). So far, I ha=
ve included:
264_1|aNew York, NY :|bHarper,|c[2012] or maybe [2012?]
264_4 |ccopyright 2012
Yes, certainly the 260 should be changed to 264. Perhaps this was a test
record?
We would not use
Karen Nelson knel...@capilanou.ca wrote:
But I am still wondering about the issue of the author holding copyright
… does her name go in the second 264, if a second one is kept? Haven’t seen
it done so far.
The 264 field dedicated to copyright is for the date alone--that's it. So
all you'll
According to RDA 2.11 Copyright date, record date associated with a claim of
protection under copyright or a similar regime. RDA says nothing about
recording who actually holds the copyright, so, no, you wouldn't do that.
Also you can use either copyright or (c). On a Windows machine, a quick
Should have said: hold down the ALT key and type 0169 on the number pad .
Benjamin Abrahamse
Cataloging Coordinator
Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
Thanks, everyone! I'll get there eventually... I hope.
I'm so glad our administrator agreed to fork out for the print version of RDA.
I get so embroiled in ToolKit, even with all those online tutorials! Somehow, I
still just love stuff on an actual PAGE. Call me a Luddite.
kn
From: Resource
No, the element is just copyright date. Only a date (preceded by (c) or
(p) is recorded in 264 _4 $c.
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
Dana Van Meter vanme...@ias.edu wrote:
1. Are we allowed to use, then, the more specific terms indented
underneath the relationship designator performer (which is in bold), or
are we to use performer only, to cover all those types of situations
represented by the more specific indented not
So, I get this bit now.
But here's another question, can't find any clues in the resources so far.
On t.p. verso of a title for which I have an RDA bib: the US and Canadian
publication information.
I know I do not have to include the latter, but in a Canadian university
library, I still want
Thank you Mark. I did re-read Appendix I.1 after I had already sent my
question and realized that yes, it does say that you can use the more
specific terms. Wish I had realized that before I sent my question!
In the case of the $4 code, you're saying you would use just the $4 code,
right?
Karen,
You are correct. MARC field 264 is repeatable for successive publication
statements (e.g., for a serial or integrating resource). For a book published
simultaneously in two countries, or jointly by two publishers, it works just
like the MARC 260.
See:
Dana Van Meter vanme...@ias.edu wrote:
In the case of the $4 code, you’re saying you would use just the $4 code,
right? (And not a combination of $4 plus $e using the terminology
accompanying the code in the MARC Code List for Relators?). I don’t have a
problem with using just the $4 code, I
For what it's worth, PCC guidelines say to use the terms, not the codes.
Adam Schiff
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
Many thanks!
KN
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 2:43 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] another (basic) 264 query
Karen,
You are
Please remove me from this list - thank you.
Lynn Burg
lb...@gac.edu
Sent from my iPad
Karen Nelson posted:
264_1$aNew York, NY :$bRandom House, Inc. ;$aToronto :$bRandom House of Can=
ada Limited,|c[2012]
We think one 264 works best. We would have onl one 264 with the same
indicator(s). However, come Bibframe as now conceived, if the two
publishers assign different ISBNs, you
I said:
It's easier to always transcribe or add jurisdiction than to ponder,
as well as making the record more helpful internationally.
In addition to the advantage of transcribing or supplying jurisdiction
in a form patrons can read, we do not know (do we?) that Bibframe will
have an equivalent
20 matches
Mail list logo
